Meat Once saved always saved?

[tps26]

Thankyou. It is very encouraging to hear feedback like that, I greatly appreciate it.

The moment after I posted my above post I thought about the resurrection of the martyrs, which I had ignored in my brief post, which obviously splits things into multiple resurrections. But it still doesn't split it in the way you have proposed. The resurrections are:
1: Christ
2: Martyrs, to complete security from the second death ("This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power")
3: All mankind, to judgment. Those found in the Book to life (with the martyrs who are already there), those not found in the Book to the lake of fire - the second death.

However, you are proposing an additional resurrection of all, from the second death. That, I cannot see in scripture. Yes, I am aware of the passages about "every knee shall bow" etc, but these can be interpreted in several ways (including being entirely pre-second-death - bowing in surprise and even terror at the time of judgement but without changing the outcome of that judgement). So they are not evidence of a post-lake-of-fire resurrection. They can be read to be consistent with it, but are not in themselves evidence of it.

But I understand how you have got to this understanding. God is love, and this is an interpretation that appears to be consistent with his love nature. But that doesn't necessarily mean it is correct.

I agree with you regarding "their worm dieth not". I don't believe this particular phrase indicates eternal torment. I personally tend towards annihilationism, because if death and evil is to be abolished, how can evil people continue to exist in torment, a torment called "the second death"? That would mean that neither evil nor death had been abolished, as both continued to exist - and it is difficult to mentally reconcile with God's love. Like you, I don't think humans would last long in a lake of fire, it makes more sense as a fire of destruction. However, I am aware that various passages appear to contradict this in different ways (e.g. suggesting torment lasting for longer), so I'm not asserting it as fact, just saying that's the direction I tend towards in my thinking these days. I haven't got this all worked out.

But trimming it back to the basics, it just seems clearest to take the words "death" and "life" literally, not symbolic of something else. In other words, the wages of sin are truly "death", not eternal life in undesirable circumstances. And the gift of God that we seek is truly "eternal life", rather than eternal life being something we already have a guarantee of so do not need to be given, and we're just seeking better circumstances during that eternal life.
"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Romans 6:23
And I think that you have reached a similar view - but then you've added more complicating layers to it.

Your understanding appears to abolish eternal torment - but replace it with purgatory. The final destination of sinners becomes purgatory, a temporary torment, refining by fire until they too are resurrected again. That seems to me to be several layers of human reasoning formulating a hypothetical future that is palatable to the human mind, but is not directly from scripture. Just as the Catholic version of purgatory is not directly from scripture.

In your understanding, why should we follow Christ? What is the purpose of faith? Why should we reach the lost, if they will all be saved anyway? Is it so they avoid a temporary period of torment?

Personally, I think it's simpler to understand that we are to follow Christ to avoid "death", and to receive "eternal life".

Recall from an earlier post I made in this thread that the greek aionion is transliterated as our english word eonion. A transliteration is always closer in meaning than a translation because transliteration simply changes the letters of a word while retaining the meaning, wheras translation substitutes the (hopefully) closest possible word in the language being translated to.

In the case of aionion, eonion and eternal mean two different things. Eonion is that which pertains to an eon, or the eons. An eon is a long but finite period of time, an age. Any time you see eternal in your NT you can substitute eonion and start making sense of things, or better yet pick a translation that already does it for you.

We live in "the current wicked eon". The millennium is the next eon. The new heavens and the new earth is the eon which follows the millennium. Eonion life is life in the next two eons. Eonion death or destruction is non-existance in one or both of the next two eons. I don't believe in any purgatory, death is always death.

Let's get to the real heart of this matter though.
Who is greater: Christ or Adam?

I think we can all agree that in Adam all (i.e. 100%) die. So, if in Christ, 50% are made alive, and 50% perish in whatever mode you have chosen, who is greater? Adam ate a piece of fruit, and his act is more effective in condemning the race than the Son of God giving up his life to reverse the condemnation.

What if 90% are made alive? Is Christ a successful savior? Considering that by some demographic estimates, Christianity pegs him as around a 5% successful savior, we might see that as "good enough" by human standards. Gosh darn it, Jesus tried, he really did. 90% is pretty good!

Let's look at this on a personal level.
What do you contribute to your resurrection? Does it require faith to live again? Or does faith make you aware of the already finished work?
If your 0.001% contribution of faith is what it takes to change your outcome from death to life, then in reality your 0.001% is greater than Christ’s 99.99% because without your 0.001%, Christ is not a successful savior.

You see, Christians don't have faith in Christ, they have faith in faith. They beleive their faith saves them, not Christ.

The real purpose of faith is that we take on Christ's faith.

Jesus had faith that his God and Father would raise him from the dead into life beyond the power of death. Jesus is the inaugurator and perfector of faith. Our faith is his faith.

You see, just like us, Jesus was born to die.
Jesus died for us, not instead of us, but with us.

You will still die. If his death was a substitute for yours, then he failed.

But Jesus died alongside us, in fact literally alongside two sinners. One had faith, one did not. The one who had faith was saved through that faith, even while he died. He had an assurance of things not seen. The other guy did not have an assurance of life. That doesn't mean he won't live again, just that he died ignorant of it. If you asked them both before their last breath if they were saved, one would say yes, and one would say no. And then they would both die. And yet Christ died for both of them. With both of them.

3 days later Jesus opened his eyes to find himself no longer on a cross but laying down in a tomb. Can you imagine what he felt? His father had done it, he had brought him back to life.

At its simplest, our message to our fellow man is this:
"You are conciliated to God"

If they don't believe that message, it doesn't change the validity of that message. It is still true. Christ Jesus is a successful savior.

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

Consider though that Jesus Himself said that the way to life is narrow and that few will find it, and that the way to destruction is broad and many will find it. When Paul said that in Christ, all will be made alive, the "all" he was referring to, were all who are in Christ. Those who are not in Christ will not be made alive. Our faith is not in faith itself, but in the promise of eternal life, which was given to us by Christ Jesus.

 

[FollowingHim]

For the purpose of this discussion I'm happy to run with "eonian" life, being an incredibly long period of life. Personally I think it's probably actually being used to mean "eternal", but I'm not going to argue that point, let's run with "eonian". So our reward is "eonian life", and the punishment for sin is "death".

But scripture never says the punishment for sin is "eonian death", being death that lasts for an eon or two but then ceases. It just says "death". The focus is not on the period of time, because death is an instantaneous thing. It happens in a moment, and it's finished. I wouldn't say that my childhood pet is in eternal death (present tense) - I'd just say it died (past tense). That would still make the reward of the righteous an unimaginably long period of life, and the punishment of the wicked "death" - with no qualifiers, making it final and finished.

I appreciate that you have a lot of logical reasoning behind your view that those who inherit death are eventually resurrected again - but once again this is logical reasoning. It is not scripture. And as human reasoning, it could very easily be incorrect.

You see, Christians don't have faith in Christ, they have faith in faith. They beleive their faith saves them, not Christ.

Romans 9:18-24
Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

We are not saved by our own merits, but because He chose us. For some reason He has chosen to create some people for "eonian life", and others for "destruction". It may seem completely unfair to us, yet scripture clearly states that is what He has done, and it is not for us to question it. I believe it is just, because none of us deserve life in the first place. Even the brief life He does grant everybody on earth is a blessing. The wages of sin is death, but nobody deserved to be alive in the first place anyway, so nobody can really complain about that. Yet, because of His mercy, He has chosen to give far longer life to some, even though they do not deserve it of their own merits.

I think that what you are proposing changes these from "vessels of wrath fitted to destruction", and makes them "vessels of wrath fitted to temporary punishment followed by glory". It's too contradictory to scripture.

What do you contribute to your resurrection? Does it require faith to live again? Or does faith make you aware of the already finished work?

Faith makes you aware of it. BUT only those who have been chosen for it will believe and have faith.

1 Cor 1:18: "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God."

 

[Kai T]

What if 90% are made alive? Is Christ a successful savior? Considering that by some demographic estimates, Christianity pegs him as around a 5% successful savior, we might see that as "good enough" by human standards. Gosh darn it, Jesus tried, he really did. 90% is pretty good! Let's look at this on a personal level.
What do you contribute to your resurrection? Does it require faith to live again? Or does faith make you aware of the already finished work?
If your 0.001% contribution of faith is what it takes to change your outcome from death to life, then in reality your 0.001% is greater than Christ’s 99.99% because without your 0.001%, Christ is not a successful savior.

Our Lord Jesus is ALREADY a successful savior by defeating death on the cross. God has already chosen His Elects to receive the gift of eternal Life. Using percentages to evaluate a successful outcome seems to me to be a human way of seeing success, not God's way. Remember during the days of Noah, only Noah and his family got saved by God out of possibly billions of lives. Did it make God a failure? Certainly not.

Jesus died for us, not instead of us, but with us.

You will still die. If his death was a substitute for yours, then he failed.

But Jesus died alongside us, in fact literally alongside two sinners. One had faith, one did not. The one who had faith was saved through that faith, even while he died. He had an assurance of things not seen. The other guy did not have an assurance of life. That doesn't mean he won't live again, just that he died ignorant of it. If you asked them both before their last breath if they were saved, one would say yes, and one would say no. And then they would both die. And yet Christ died for both of them. With both of them.

I don't think there is anywhere in the Bible that says Christ died for both sinners alongside Him on the cross. The Lord died for those who believe and choose to accept the gift of eternal life. For the ones who don't believe, Christ' sacrifice on the cross is of no meaning to them. The second death is just because of the Almighty's judgement on sinners. Nothing more and nothing less. The word "Death" could have various meanings but you seem to be fixated on a particular meaning. @FollowingHim is right. We just have to take the words literally and be careful not to ascribe meanings to those words.

 

[Cap]

I think you guys are reaching some frustration here because you have a unified underlying assumption that the wages of sin is something other than death. Namely hell. But if so, which one?
There are five "hells".
1. Sheol: is the grave, the unseen. So only death is in view here.
2. Hades is the Greek equivalent, so again we're just talking death.
3. Gehenna is a real valley outside Jerusalem that you can visit today. I understand that it will again become a burning trash pit in the millennium, and corpses will be put there. (Corpses are dead bodies, btw).
4. Tartarus is mentioned once by Peter in reference to a place where some spirits have been temporarily placed, and where Jesus went after his ressurrection to talk to them.

...so we have run out of hells in the Bible, and we still don't have a place, other than the grave, for my grandmother who never acknowledged what Jesus and God did. Somehow four different words got haphazardly translated into a completely different word.
But what's the 5th hell I mentioned? This one isn't in the Bible. This is the one Christians make up in their minds to put people in who are less righteous than they are. And just like the concept of hell vanishes from the Bible when you know the four mistranslated words, this one will vanish when you understand grace.

So what if the wages of sin is death after all? The dead know nothing. Death is death. It is not life in another place. If death was life in another place we wouldn't need a ressurrection. Death is the cessation of existence, and this is why ressurrection is so vastly important. There is no work, or knowledge, or wisdom in sheol where you are going. (Ecclesiastes 9:10)

What died on the cross? Did Jesus die, or did only his body die? Are you saved by flesh and blood alone? If the wages of sin is not death but eternal conscious torment in "hell", then why is Jesus not still there? Whatever you have wrought in your mind for your fellow sinners is what you believe Jesus paid. If it's eternal then so is his payment, and you have no risen savior. If the wages of sin is death, then it's a different story because God raised Jesus from the dead. And if He can raise Jesus then He can raise you too. That's the assurance we have in Christ.

A final word, check out references to "eternal" in your interlinear and see that the Greek word is aionion which is properly transliterated into its English equivalent eonion, which does not mean eternal but age-lasting. God's judgments are remedial and they are limited, just like your discipline of your own children, judgments always lead someplace.

Right now salvation is only through faith (as opposed to sight) because death is in your future. You hope that you will live again, and faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. If you don't have faith, then you don't have assurance in your heart of a ressurrection beyond the reach of death. It doesn't mean you won't be ressurrected, just that you are ignorant of it. Is someone without faith saved from death? Ask them. To their knowledge, no. If you believe in the ressurrection, then you are saved. If you don't beleive, from your limited perspective you are not saved because you can not see it yet, nor do you have the faith to "see" it in the future.

So in a sense, losing your faith is "losing" your salvation because it moves from being a reality in your perspective to no longer being a reality in your perspective.

Ultimately God is the savior of all mankind. And just as everyone was condemned in Adam, so everyone is made alive through Christ.

Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.
Romans 5:18

It is the same "all", you can't have one without the other.

Thankfully we don't have to guess, in Revelation 20:13-15 we are told directly what the lake of fire is: "And the sea gives up the dead in it, and death and the unseen give up the dead in them. And they were condemned, each in accord with their acts. And death and the unseen were cast into the lake of fire.
This is the second death– the lake of fire. And if anyone was not found written in the scroll of life, he was cast into the lake of fire."

The lake of fire is the second death. What is the second death? It is just like the first death, but more of it. How long could a human survive in a lake of fire? Not long, it would kill them. Only three characters are said to be tormented in the lake of fire for the eon of the eons (note that this is a limited time). These are the Adversary, the wild beast, and the false prophet. I suppose as spiritual superpowers they don't just die instantly like a human would. They are being refined for what follows, for all things are out of God, and all things are to God.

In 1 Corinthians 15:21-29 we get a peak beyond these events:

"21 For since, in fact, through a man came death, through a Man, also, comes the resurrection of the dead.
22 For even as, in Adam, all are dying, thus also, in Christ, shall all be vivified.
23 Yet each in his own class: the Firstfruit, Christ; thereupon those who are Christ's in His presence;
24 thereafter the consummation, whenever He may be giving up the kingdom to His God and Father, whenever He should be nullifying all sovereignty and all authority and power.
25 For He must be reigning until He should be placing all His enemies under His feet.
26 The last enemy is being abolished: death.
27 For He subjects all under His feet. Now whenever He may be saying that all is subject, it is evident that it is outside of Him Who subjects all to Him.
28 Now, whenever all may be subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also shall be subjected to Him Who subjects all to Him, that God may be All in all.)"

What happens to dead people when death is abolished?
There is only one thing left for them, life. They are made alive again. Even dead people who died in the lake of fire (which is the second death). God will be All in all.

Notice that those who die the second death do not live through the new heavens and earth, but are given life at the consummation which follows. There are still consequences and judgements they face, but I hope you appreciate the difference between the unconsciousness of death during an amazing eon that you miss out on, and being consciously tortured forever.

God is fair, and God is good.

More to follow on the rich man vs. poor man parable when I get a chance to write...

 

[Cap]

My apologies for not writing a personal response to this but due to time constraints I am just going to paste the below response to your question, written by Martin Zender. He can come off a little confrontational, but his points are good. The basic premise is that parables are parables.
-------------------

"Luke 16:19-31 (the Rich Man and Lazarus) is a parable. Jesus is in the midst of teaching five parables, beginning in 15:3 with the parable of the lost sheep. Following that are the parables of the lost coin, the prodigal son, the unjust administrator, and the Rich Man and Lazarus. The purpose of these parables is to teach the Pharisees a lesson about how they treat publicans and sinners. If you take the Rich Man parable literally, you have to throw out everything the rest of the scriptures have to say about death. But not only that.

Is Lazarus literally sitting on the bosom of Abraham? Why not, if this is literal? In the parable, the Rich Man is damned because he was rich and wore fine things. Lazarus is sitting on Abraham’s chest simply because he got bad things in this life. Think about this. There is nothing here about the gospel, nothing about faith. If you’re going to make this parable the criteria for either being consciously tormented in flame or sitting on Abraham’s chest for eternity, then you’re going to have to base salvation on wealth, not faith. Well? What is the criteria for salvation in this context? Physical disadvantage only; there is nothing about faith here. So lets all wear grubby clothes and get dogs to lick our cold sores. We’ll be on our way!

I’m curious. Since this is a five-fold parable, beginning in chapter 15, why don’t you make the Prodigal Son in 15:11-32 literal? At the end of the parable, the father says, "This, my son, was dead." Why don’t you take that death literally? Using your system of interpreting parables literally, you can use the parable of the prodigal son to prove that, after people die, they go off to a far country, spend all their money on whores and alcohol, then end up in a pig sty eating indigestible corn."

The first question to ask when you see a translator has chosen the word "hell" is, "which one?"

Most times, geographical places retain a transliteration of their original name, but this verse is too great an opportunity to pass up for those running the sin-management companies (i.e. churches).

The arbitrary "hell" in your translation of this verse is actually Gehenna. Here is a picture of Gehenna from TripAdvisor:

View attachment 2034

Seems like a nice place for a picnic. So why does Jesus say the fire will not die out here?

A little back story about Gehenna. This word means Valley of Hinnom. A lot of people were burned here in Israel's history. This was the place where their children were sacrificed to Molech (2 Kings 23:10; 16:3; 21:6) and there are some inferences in Isaiah to a large army of Assyrians being burned here as well.

We read in Jeremiah 7:31‭-‬33:
"And they have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I did not command, nor did it come into my mind. Therefore, behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord , when it will no more be called Topheth, or the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, but the Valley of Slaughter; for they will bury in Topheth, because there is no room elsewhere. And the dead bodies (dead bodies means bodies that are not alive, btw) of this people will be food for the birds of the air, and for the beasts of the earth, and none will frighten them away."

This valley is also known to historians as having later become the dump outside Jerusalem's walls. From a city the size of Jerusalem there would have been a constant supply of garbage and corpses to feed the worms and flames here during the time of Jesus's teaching.

There is some prophetic emphasis here as well though. Jesus is actually quoting the closing words of the book of Isaiah:

“And they shall go out and look on the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me. For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh."

Dead bodies are dead bodies, I can't say it any clearer. There is nothing in Jesus's teaching about living immortally in Gehenna. That is only read in by your subconscious due to your conditioning by the same people who told you monogamy is the only way to do marriage.

The only thing that doesn't die here is the worms. I am sure that is great news to any worms reading this message. Actually, the point here is not that the worms are magical, immortal worms but that the fire and worms do not cease to do their work in the Valley of Hinnom as long as there is trash and corpses (dead bodies) to feed the worms and flames.

I do think that during the millennial reign, corpses will again be buring here. This is the period Isaiah is referring to –and the kingdom that Jesus has in view in his teachings.

What Jesus is saying is: It is better to lose a limb than face the capital punishment dictated by the law, and subsequently have your corpse burned on the municipal trash heap.

Ask yourself. Do you really think the church got marriage so completely wrong but happened to get everything else right?
What I am finding is that where there is smoke there is fire. The real question is, do today's Pharisees teach anything right?

I do.
There are multiple ressurrections that God effects.
To be quite exact, the first ressurrection was actually Christ Jesus. He was the Firstfruits, the firstborn from the dead.

Revelation 20 speaks of a former/first ressurrection (more correctly rendered former from the Greek: πρώτη (prōtē) as it is in the CLNT) I think we are all more than familiar with mia being Greek for first. "Former" makes more sense considering Christ’s ressurrection has already occured.

Why mention a first or former resurrection if there is not a second (or third) or latter? Why not just call it The resurrection?

Here it is in context:

"Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom the authority to judge was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years.
Revelation 20:4‭-‬6

So there is a ressurrection of some, and then a thousand years goes by, and then this happens:

"And I saw the dead (this is a figure of speech referring to those who were collectively dead up until this point, notice how they are standing and being judged), great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done. And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
Revelation 20:12‭-‬15

This is now the third ressurrection
1. Christ
2. Those at the beginning of the millennium
3. The great white throne

Notice a couple things from the Great White Throne passage. The dead are brought to life without the word ressurrection being used. I can't give you a verse that literally says "second/third/fourth ressurrection" but yet this one is clearly a thousand years seperated from the former resurrection, which itself followed Christ's ressurrection. At this ressurrection some of the dead are in the book of life and are ressurrected beyond the power of death, i.e. vivified. Others are not in the book of life and die the second death.

A long long long time passes before the consummation of all of 1 Corinthians 15. Those who died the second death are dead and unconscious of this passage of time. To put in perspective how far off the consummation is, note that at this point Christ who has had all things subjected under himself will then himself be subjected to God so that God may be All in all. (1 Cor 15:28)

Sometime before this occurs death is abolished. Before Christ is subjected to God all things are subjected to him:

"By myself I have sworn; from my mouth has gone out in righteousness a word that shall not return: ‘To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear allegiance.’"
Isaiah 45:23

The end state is that God is All in all.



Think about this. If you are dead, is death abolished for you? As long as you are dead, death still exists.

If death being abolished just means no one else dies and you are forgotten, what then of the Great Human Question posed by Job? "If a man dies, shall he live again?" Who did Christ die for? How many?

For even as, in Adam, all are dying, thus also, in Christ, shall all be vivified. Yet each in his own class: 1. The Firstfruit, Christ; 2. thereupon those who are Christ's in His presence (I think these are those both before and after the millennium); 3. thereafter the consummation, whenever He may be giving up the kingdom to His God and Father.
1 Corinthians 15:22-24


“Man who is born of a woman is few of days and full of trouble. He comes out like a flower and withers; he flees like a shadow and continues not. And do you open your eyes on such a one and bring me into judgment with you? Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? There is not one. Since his days are determined, and the number of his months is with you, and you have appointed his limits that he cannot pass, look away from him and leave him alone, that he may enjoy, like a hired hand, his day. “For there is hope for a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that its shoots will not cease. Though its root grow old in the earth, and its stump die in the soil, yet at the scent of water it will bud and put out branches like a young plant. But a man dies and is laid low; man breathes his last, and where is he? As waters fail from a lake and a river wastes away and dries up, so a man lies down and rises not again; till the heavens are no more he will not awake or be roused out of his sleep. Oh that you would hide me in Sheol, that you would conceal me until your wrath be past, that you would appoint me a set time, and remember me! If a man dies, shall he live again? All the days of my service I would wait, till my renewal should come. You would call, and I would answer you; you would long for the work of your hands. For then you would number my steps; you would not keep watch over my sin; my transgression would be sealed up in a bag, and you would cover over my iniquity."
Job 14:1‭-‬17

Recall from an earlier post I made in this thread that the greek aionion is transliterated as our english word eonion. A transliteration is always closer in meaning than a translation because transliteration simply changes the letters of a word while retaining the meaning, wheras translation substitutes the (hopefully) closest possible word in the language being translated to.

In the case of aionion, eonion and eternal mean two different things. Eonion is that which pertains to an eon, or the eons. An eon is a long but finite period of time, an age. Any time you see eternal in your NT you can substitute eonion and start making sense of things, or better yet pick a translation that already does it for you.

We live in "the current wicked eon". The millennium is the next eon. The new heavens and the new earth is the eon which follows the millennium. Eonion life is life in the next two eons. Eonion death or destruction is non-existance in one or both of the next two eons. I don't believe in any purgatory, death is always death.

Let's get to the real heart of this matter though.
Who is greater: Christ or Adam?

I think we can all agree that in Adam all (i.e. 100%) die. So, if in Christ, 50% are made alive, and 50% perish in whatever mode you have chosen, who is greater? Adam ate a piece of fruit, and his act is more effective in condemning the race than the Son of God giving up his life to reverse the condemnation.

What if 90% are made alive? Is Christ a successful savior? Considering that by some demographic estimates, Christianity pegs him as around a 5% successful savior, we might see that as "good enough" by human standards. Gosh darn it, Jesus tried, he really did. 90% is pretty good!

Let's look at this on a personal level.
What do you contribute to your resurrection? Does it require faith to live again? Or does faith make you aware of the already finished work?
If your 0.001% contribution of faith is what it takes to change your outcome from death to life, then in reality your 0.001% is greater than Christ’s 99.99% because without your 0.001%, Christ is not a successful savior.

You see, Christians don't have faith in Christ, they have faith in faith. They beleive their faith saves them, not Christ.

The real purpose of faith is that we take on Christ's faith.

Jesus had faith that his God and Father would raise him from the dead into life beyond the power of death. Jesus is the inaugurator and perfector of faith. Our faith is his faith.

You see, just like us, Jesus was born to die.
Jesus died for us, not instead of us, but with us.

You will still die. If his death was a substitute for yours, then he failed.

But Jesus died alongside us, in fact literally alongside two sinners. One had faith, one did not. The one who had faith was saved through that faith, even while he died. He had an assurance of things not seen. The other guy did not have an assurance of life. That doesn't mean he won't live again, just that he died ignorant of it. If you asked them both before their last breath if they were saved, one would say yes, and one would say no. And then they would both die. And yet Christ died for both of them. With both of them.

3 days later Jesus opened his eyes to find himself no longer on a cross but laying down in a tomb. Can you imagine what he felt? His father had done it, he had brought him back to life.

At its simplest, our message to our fellow man is this:
"You are conciliated to God"

If they don't believe that message, it doesn't change the validity of that message. It is still true. Christ Jesus is a successful savior.

Finally, someone I can relate to. If you ever plan on going to a retreat, please let me know. We have a lot in common. I would like to meet you.

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

Finally, someone I can relate to. If you ever plan on going to a retreat, please let me know. We have a lot in common. I would like to meet you.

I thought you were an Annihilationist, not a Universalist.

 

[Cap]

I thought you were an Annihilationist, not a Universalist.

I am a child of God who believes in the Power and Love of God to save the whole world and all of His Creation, however way He chooses to do it.

Neither am I a fatalist, because each day is a gift to me and there for me to explore and learn more than I did yesterday.

 

[tps26]

Finally, someone I can relate to. If you ever plan on going to a retreat, please let me know. We have a lot in common. I would like to meet you.

I would love to go to a reatreat someday. From what I read on here, they are very special occasions.

 

[frederick]

That’s a low and unsubstantiated attack. A false teacher is a despicable thing and leveling that charge should not be done for a belief that vast swaths of the Church have held for all of it’s history.

Vast swaths of the Church has not held those beliefs for all of its history. You might wish to look at history and consider the action taken e.g. after the Synod of Dort. Johan van Oldenbarnevelt was beheaded as a traitor to the state for promoting the doctrines espoused by Jacobus Arminius. The Arminians were ordered to sign the Act of Cessation and hundreds were excommunicated for refusing. The Church has historically promoted a doctrinal position of God being sovereign over the salvation of sinners; a position Jesus Christ Himself taught. Read again John 10 and the emphatic construction Jesus used to declare the externality of the salvation He gives. Cheers

 

[frederick]

I have come to believe that Paul is historical there.

The language Paul uses in Romans 7 is present tense, so there is good reason to accept it as a present reality. He is battling sin but his confidence is in Jesus Christ our Lord. Shalom

 

[The Revolting Man]

Vast swaths of the Church has not held those beliefs for all of its history. You might wish to look at history and consider the action taken e.g. after the Synod of Dort. Johan van Oldenbarnevelt was beheaded as a traitor to the state for promoting the doctrines espoused by Jacobus Arminius. The Arminians were ordered to sign the Act of Cessation and hundreds were excommunicated for refusing. The Church has historically promoted a doctrinal position of God being sovereign over the salvation of sinners; a position Jesus Christ Himself taught. Read again John 10 and the emphatic construction Jesus used to declare the externality of the salvation He gives. Cheers

See your response to at @Daniel DeLuca , its completely legitimate to argue that Paul was worried about his salvation, clearly demonstrating that the idea existed for all of church history, and its undeniable that individuals could be cut off from Israel so the idea goes back even further than Paul. So again, that was a base and low attack.